> Sensible, understandable and orderly:
A BWMA member claims that shops don't follow the Price Marking Order 1999. See:
Luckily the shops don't do it that way and instead use those (ahem) "awful" imperial units that people prefer.
An example of this can be found in the very same UKMA PDF report that you posted here.
I'm not sure what UKMA PDF report he is referring to, but in the Price Marking Order I saw no example of the allowance of FFU, unless it is this:
"unit price shall mean the final price, including VAT and all other taxes, for one kilogramme, one litre, one metre, one square metre or one cubic metre of the product or a different single unit of quantity which is widely and customarily used in the Member State concerned in the marketing of specific products".
Can this statement, shown in red be a loophole to allow FFU in unit pricing? Even if technically the pound/ounce is not legal for trade.
Euric
> > An article from the business section of The Washington Post, July 18,
> 2004,
> > followed by my response to her.
>
> An excellent article and a good response. Perhaps we can ask permission to
> have a copy on the USMA website.
>
> Even in metric units, the issue is not easy. In the UK, the unit price must
> be by the litre or kg etc. But there are exceptions, for example the unit
> for herbs and spices is 10 g. Rice was also an exception (unit = 100 g) but
> pasta was not, industry says that rice and pasta should have the same unit
> and they may abolish the rice exception.
>
> You can see the sort of debates that go on if you look into the UK
> Department of Trade records of consultations. The following page is an
> example, which also lists the exceptions.
> http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/archive/consultations/pricemarkshed1.htm
>
>
